Emmet Sweeney proves this when he writes:
...
In Ramessides, Medes and Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying
Tiglath-Pileser III with Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with
Darius I. The striking correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated
generation for generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely
that the identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch could
potentially invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next “pairing” –
Sennacherib with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and convincing
correspondences?
A random search of the internet produces the following for Xerxes and
Sennacherib: “Like the Persian Xerxes, he [Sennacherib] was weak and
vainglorious, cowardly under reverse, and cruel and boastful in success.”
(WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html).
The writer of these words did not suspect any connection between the two kings,
much less that they were the same person. Nevertheless, the similarities between
them were so compelling that one apparently brought the other to mind.
The writer’s instincts, I shall argue, did not betray him. The lives and
careers of Xerxes and Sennacherib were so similar that were the thesis presented
in these pages not proffered, scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels
between the two.
One of Xerxes’ first actions as king was an invasion of Egypt, which had
thrown off the Persian yoke shortly after Darius’ defeat at the hands of the
Greeks. This reconquest of Egypt was said to have taken place in Xerxes’ second
year. Similarly, one of the first actions of Sennacherib was a campaign against
Egypt and her Palestinian and Syrian allies. This war against Egypt took place
in Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of
Judah had rebelled and sought the assistance of
the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the cavalry of
the king of Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they (actually)
had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle
lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.… I fought with
them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally
captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the
charioteers of the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts
(Princeton, 1950) pp. 287-8).
Hezekiah was besieged, but not captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this
campaign was a complete victory for Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the
Great King:
Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had
overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into
Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him,
did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of
gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone
… all kinds of valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and
female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave
he sent his (personal) messenger.
Hezekiah would scarcely have sent this tribute to Sennacherib had his
Egyptian allies not been totally defeated, a circumstance which has made many
scholars suspect that he actually entered Egypt after his defeat of its army on
the plain of Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp.
308-9). This supposition is supported by the fact that Sennacherib described
himself as “King of the Four Quarters,” a term which, as stated above,
traditionally implied authority over Magan and Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the
western-most “quarter” or edge of the world. It is also supported by both
classical and Hebrew tradition. Thus Herodotus spoke of Sennacherib advancing
against Egypt with a mighty army and camping at Pelusium, near the
north-eastern frontier (Herodotus, iii, 141), whilst Berossus, who wrote a
history of Chaldea, said that Sennacherib had conducted an expedition against
“all Asia and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, i,4). Jewish tradition
goes further and tells of the conquest of Egypt by the king and of his march
towards Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to stop his campaign against Hezekiah
for a short time, as he had to move hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered
this ‘pearl of all countries’ he returned to Judea.” (L. Ginzberg, The Legends
of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920) Vol. VI p. 365). Talmudic sources also relate
that after conquering Egypt, Sennacherib carried away from there the throne of
Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p. 160)
Sennacherib’s second campaign against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian
inscriptions, had, as is well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great
King.
The greatest event of Xerxes’ reign was of course his momentous defeat in
Greece. The story of his invasion is recorded in detail by the Greek authors,
most particularly by Herodotus, and it is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome
the Hellenes represented the great watershed in Achaemenid history. From that
point on the Persian Empire entered a period of prolonged decline.
Strange then that of all the wars waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents
who are said to have come near to defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one
well-known passage Berossus tells of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the
Ionians of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (London,
1913) p. 487). The Greeks, he says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand
struggle.
The most important event of Xerxes’ latter years was without doubt his defeat
of yet another Babylonian rebellion. Although our sources are somewhat vague, it
would appear that there were in fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time
of Xerxes, the first of which occurred in his second year, and was led by
Bel-shimanni, and the second some time later led by Shamash-eriba.
How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should face two major rebellions in
Babylon, the first of which came within three years or so of his succession, and
was led by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns, Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120).
Rebellion number two came some years later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This
second rebellion, one might guess, was one of the consequences of the Persian
defeat in Greece, and there seems little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the
Assyrian records and monuments is Shamash-eriba of the Persian.
Both Xerxes and Sennacherib were relatively mild in their treatment of the
Babylonians after the first rebellion. However, after the second insurrection
both kings subjected the city to massive destruction. But the parallels do not
end there. Xerxes’ terrible punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the
Babylonians’ murder of his satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they
Lived and Worked (1979) p. 46).
Similarly, Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon after the second insurrection
was largely in vengeance for the Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother
Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit.
pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens,
destroyed its temples, and seized the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian Dicks,
op cit). In the same way, Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples,
massacred the people, and carried off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W.
Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and Marduk were one and the same; and the name was
often written Bel-Marduk. In memory of the awful destruction wrought by
Sennacherib, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight
years that followed as “kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such
catastrophe again until the time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries
later.
Xerxes’ despoliation of Babylon is generally believed to have been
accompanied by his suppression of the Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that
his famous inscription recording the outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods,
in favor of Ahura Mazda, was part of the general response to the second
Babylonian uprising:
And among these countries (in rebellion) there was one where, previously,
daevas had been worshipped. Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed
this sanctuary of daevas and proclaimed. “Let daevas not be worshipped!” There,
where daevas had been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.
How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should be accused of outlawing the
Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in favor of Ashur as part of his response to
a second Babylonian rebellion? “A political-theological propaganda campaign was
launched to explain to the people that what had taken place [the destruction of
Babylon and despoliation of Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord with the wish of
most of the gods. A story was written in which Marduk, because of a
transgression, was captured and brought before a tribunal. Only a part of the
commentary to this botched piece of literature is extant.”
(http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html). Nevertheless, it is clear
that Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw” Marduk. Thus we find that,
“Even the great poem of the creation of the world, the Enuma elish, was altered:
the god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.” (Ibid.)
To summarize, then, consider the following:
| SENNACHERIB | XERXES |
| Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter. | Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter. |
| Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba. | Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk. |
| The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum. | The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap. |
| After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity. | After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity. |
The parallels between Xerxes and Sennacherib are thus among the closest
between an Achaemenid and a Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished.
There is yet one more striking comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison
so compelling and so identical in the details that this one alone, even without
the others, would be enough to demand an identification.
Xerxes died after a reign of 21 years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in
dramatic circumstances, murdered in a palace conspiracy apparently involving at
least one of his sons. Popular tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes
was Artabanus, the captain of his guard, and that this man then put the blame on
Darius, eldest son of the murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that
Artaxerxes, the crown prince, pointed the finger at Darius, who was immediately
arrested and executed. (Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia Vol. 1 (London,
1930) pp. 213-4). It is said that Artabanus then plotted to murder Artaxerxes,
but that the conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No sooner had Artabanus been
removed than Hystaspes, another elder brother of Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion.
The young king then led his forces into Bactria and defeated the rebel in two
battles. (Ibid., p. 124)
Of the above information, one feature is most unusual: the eldest son,
Darius, who was not the crown prince, was accused of the murder by the crown
prince Artaxerxes, who then had him hunted down and killed.
The death of Sennacherib compares very well with that of Xerxes. He too was
murdered in a palace conspiracy involving some of his sons. But as with the
death of Xerxes, there has always been much rumor and myth, though little solid
fact, in evidence. The biblical Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer,
two of Sennacherib’s sons, as the killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of
Esarhaddon, the crown prince at the time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest
brother, whom he hunted down and killed. Two other brothers are also named in
complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).
In spite of Esarhaddon’s clear statement, there has always been much
confusion about the details — so much so that some have even implicated
Esarhaddon himself in the deed. In view of such a level of confusion, the
detailed discussion of the question by Professor Simo Parpola, in 1980, was
sorely needed and long overdue. Employing commendable reasoning, Parpola
demonstrated how a little-understood Babylonian text revealed the identity of
the culprit, Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI
(Chicago, 1911) No. 1091). A sentence of the document reads, “Thy son
Arad-Ninlil is going to kill thee.” The latter name should properly, according
to Parpola, be read as Arda-Mulissi (identical to Adrammelech of 2 Kings).
Motivation for the murder, said Parpola, was not difficult to find. After the
capture and probable death at the hands of the Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest
son and heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the “second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi,
now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is
outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of
Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favourite son
of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia … Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially
proclaimed crown prince.” (Prof. Simo Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme
Rencontre Assyriologique International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk
Forlag, 1980)).
We need hardly go beyond that for a motive. It is not clear whether
Arda-Mulissi personally delivered the death blow; it seems that one of his
captains was responsible.
Of this death then we note the same unusual feature. The king was murdered by
or on the orders of his eldest son, who was not however the crown prince. The
eldest son was then pursued and executed by a younger son, who was the crown
prince. The parallels with the death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a
second brother is named in complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In
both cases too the murder was not actually carried out by the prince but by a
fellow conspirator; in the case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard,
and in the case of Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of
Esarhaddon. And this calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the
murder of Xerxes and Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been
named as a suspect. Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on
the throne by Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1
(15th ed.) p. 598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that Esarhaddon
had a part in his father’s death.
Such striking similarities, when placed along with the multitude of other
parallels between the two kings’ lives, leave little doubt that we are on the
right track.
Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:16
....
![[image]](http://www.archaeology.org/1003/etc/images/tut1.gif)
![[image]](http://www.archaeology.org/1003/etc/images/tut2.gif)
![[image]](http://www.archaeology.org/1003/etc/images/tut3.gif)
